Global Warming News

[Pilot]

Loren49,

I agree living downwind from coal, nuclear, etc. power plants is not desirable, but let's make those changes for the right reasons so we can make rational judgments about any changes. If climate change is bogus, we will make a bunch of changes that don't make sense, while making some that do make sense from a plain air quality standpoint.

Let's get the science right and make rational changes for the right reasons.

 

[Pilot]

Ethanol:

Some of the stuff you hear about ethanol from biomass is nonsense. Here in Oregon they talk about ethanol from wood waste--logging slash in particular. For those who don't know, logging slash is the limbs, broken chunks, rotten wood, etc. that has no market value. It is normally left on site where it may be crushed, piled and burned or burned in place. All of those treatments are expensive, costing several hundred $ per acre. If left untreated, you have a wildfire hazard. But the cost of removing the slash from the site, even if only to burn on the landing is prohibitive and no one does it.

So the politicians think you can drag all that stuff out of the woods, maybe a thousand feet to the landing, where it can be loaded onto a truck to be driven 50 or 100 miles to an ethanol plant, burning diesel in the process (OK, biodiesel if you want). Most ethanol plants operate at a loss on corn which is a better raw material for ethanol production. And they think wood waste would be profitable. Sure.

Ignored in the discussion is that the larger chunks, which are cheaper to harvest on a cost per ton basis, are important for habitat diversity and the remaining slash that is left to decay onsite or is burned onsite contributes to site productivity over the ages (ash contributes minerals to the soil). Most of the nutrients above the ground in a conifer forest is in the needles, and most of that material would be removed for ethanol production. So even if they can make ethanol from wood waste biomass profitably, they will gradually diminish site productivity over time. Really smart.

 

[keegs]

Pilot,

This is a WAG...but it would seem to me that if we can produce ethanol from corn feedstock with all its inputs to production, at some point it should be be possible to produce ethanol and better still, butanol, from biomass e.g. ...waste paper, cornstalks, wheat straw, grasses, millings...etc... at lower costs.

That process may likely be still a few years out but given all the downsides to the status quo, not withstanding ones views on global warming, I think it's well worth the effort. JMO....

 

[dave1949]

Pilot,

This is a WAG...but it would seem to me that if we can produce ethanol from corn feedstock with all its inputs to production, at some point it should be be possible to produce ethanol and better still, butanol, from biomass e.g. ...waste paper, cornstalks, wheat straw, grasses, millings...etc... at lower costs.

That process may likely be still a few years out but given all the downsides to the status quo, not withstanding ones views on global warming, I think it's well worth the effort. JMO....

Hi Keegs,

If it is waste already, like methane from a landfill or dairy farm manure pile, sawmill waste, etc., it makes sense. But, what Pilot referred to regarding taking every scrap of cellulose out of the forest on a harvest is not sustainable.

With the pellet mills starting up around Maine, one of the forestry concerns is that you can't take treetops and such out and have enough left to nourish the forest floor. Some trees won't even grow from seed in complete sunlight, they need the shade/cover of slash heaps, etc. to get started.

I was surprised to hear they burn their slash in Oregon, but I guess that is for fire management. Either way, it gets oxidized. I would guess they do a lot of replanting there too, whereas around here it's almost all natural regeneration. They do some plantations up in the paper company lands.
Dave.

 

[IH3444]

I would think that they would grind up what they could get too if the slopes weren't too steep with one of those powerful ASV? machines I've read about on this site. It would leave alot of mulch, which would degrade back into top soil. Gathering it up, and shipping would be expensive.

 

[dave1949]

I would think that they would grind up what they could get too if the slopes weren't too steep with one of those powerful ASV? machines I've read about on this site. It would leave alot of mulch, which would degrade back into top soil. Gathering it up, and shipping would be expensive.

What I have seen done is for fellers to drop the whole trees, then big skidders gather them all up and drag them to a log landing. There, they cut the saw logs to length and use a grapple to feed the rest of the tree to a grinder which blows the chips into a semi trailer.

The skidder I watched on the wood lot above ours was capable of pulling enough trees for maybe a third of a truck load of logs on one trip to the landing area. They get 'er done.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

Hi Keegs,

If it is waste already, like methane from a landfill or dairy farm manure pile, sawmill waste, etc., it makes sense. But, what Pilot referred to regarding taking every scrap of cellulose out of the forest on a harvest is not sustainable.

With the pellet mills starting up around Maine, one of the forestry concerns is that you can't take treetops and such out and have enough left to nourish the forest floor. Some trees won't even grow from seed in complete sunlight, they need the shade/cover of slash heaps, etc. to get started.

I was surprised to hear they burn their slash in Oregon, but I guess that is for fire management. Either way, it gets oxidized. I would guess they do a lot of replanting there too, whereas around here it's almost all natural regeneration. They do some plantations up in the paper company lands.
Dave.

Hey Dave,

I follow this topic with interest but not to any significant degree. On the domestic side, I usually keep an eye and ear out on what Vinad Khosla is up to and I read the papers.

I think for the next few years at least, gasoline prices will likely remain relatively stable, barring additional conflict in any one of the many unstable places on which we depend ....one of the upsides to a slow US economy.

You might agree that if the margins narrow again, as they'd been doing prior to the meltdown, it's possible, maybe even likely, that biofuels will begin to look like a viable alternative.

My guess is that if and when production takes off, those at the helm will hold as much regard for the environment as any other industry in persuit of its interests. We all have a role here.

The forest industry I imagine could be one of many sources for feedstock.

 

[mffarmall]

I think the hardest thing about solar and wind is that I want ground units and I like to drink and tractor. I tend to run over things. I probably will almost run into things the minute the installers leave.

 

[Pilot]

Dave1949,

The industry has changed a lot here in the last 20 years and what you suggest might become economical in some situations in the future, but prices for the raw material would have to get pretty high.

We hardly ever see skidders any more. They cause too much site damage, mostly in compaction which leads to erosion and site quality degradation--Douglas-firs don't like compacted soil, but they do like sun. Now, the machine of choice is an excavator, or better yet, if the logger can afford it, a processor. The processor is a glorified, computerized excavator and chainsaw. The machine goes to the tree, grabs onto it, cuts it near ground level. If the tree isn't too big, it holds the tree horizontally, rollers run the tree left to right through a yoke and in doing so the rollers break off the limbs while the machine measures the diameter, length and taper. With current log prices programmed into the machine, it computes where to buck it and makes the cuts. All in about a minute. Then it stacks the logs for later removal. Skidders are sometimes used following a processor, but because the processor stacks the logs in an organized manner, skidders travel on a very small portion of the site.

Larger trees are felled in the traditional way with fallers. Once limbed and bucked, the excavator picks up the log and swings it around to set it down toward the landing. Does that with all the logs within reach, then moves around the stack and repeats the procedure until they get to the landing. Sounds inefficient, but it's really cheaper than skidders and cats. The excavator has about 2-3 psi ground pressure and operates on the slash and there are no skid roads. Very little soil disturbance and virtually no compaction. Cats have about 8 psi and skidders go up to 12-15.

The excavator, once the logs are out of the way, then piles the slash for burning. In a stand of small trees, there may be no need to pile the slash; we can plant right thru it. Yes, the slash is disposed of for fire concerns.

On my place, we had a lot of slash, as the trees were too open grown which gave them large crowns with lots of large limbs. We only logged about 3 1/2 acres. To remove the slash, we would have had to have a place to put it and whenever the dump truck arrived, the machine would have had to stop where it was and go load the truck with low value product. Space was limited, we only used 2 landings and there was undisturbed forest between most of the logged area and the road, so we would have had to haul all that low value product thru the forest to pile somewhere by the road. That means taking down some trees to make space to pile the slash--trees that would otherwise be left to grow and develop value.

Now, a log or a few logs you can pick up and move. The grapple on the excavator grabs at one point and the log sticks out 30-40 feet beyond, so picking it up in one spot, you pick up a lot of material. Now imagine a grapple looking like your thumb and forefinger picking up a mass of limbs. To move an equal weight of material, you would have to pick up several loads of slash. Each time with a machine costing a couple hundred or more per hour.

Logs can be moved efficiently, slash can not.

 

[dave1949]

Dave1949,

Logs can be moved efficiently, slash can not.

Good Morning Pilot,

What I was describing, they haul the entire tree behind a skidder to a landing/processing area with truck access, the only slash left on the ground is what ever might accidently break off while felling or dragging.

It's not a clear cut, but no residue from harvested trees is left.

To limit ground compaction and disturbance, in this area they try do the majority of the felling and skidding in the winter while the ground is frozen and there is snow cover. They get out of the woods in Spring and wait for 'mud season' to get over, then go back in if it is dry enough on upland areas in summer.

For sure, different techniques in different areas. In our area harvests will be a mix of hardwood species (maples, beech, oaks, ash, poplar, birches) and softwoods (eastern white pine, spruces, red pine, hemlock). All these different species and sub-species (hard rock maple & white maple eg.) have different markets that fluctuate and often get delivered to different mills.

As to the economics, I don't know if it makes sense to skid whole trees and chip the branches and tops. Those are expensive machines for sure and you have to hit the market with some luck. Seems like loggers and mills around here just barely hang on in a generally losing battle. This winter there is an awful lot of used forestry equipment for sale.

From a forest ecology perspective, the general concensus is you can't consistently strip out all the biomass and retain a productive forest. I think they are trying to figure out where the limits are.


Keegs,
There are a lot of state regulations regarding wood harvesting that will prevent most of the abuses. Maine also has no issue with making more forestry regulations if necessary. The state has an economic interest in maintaining a viable forest industry, plus it dovetails well with hunting, fishing, ATV, snowmobiles and tourism revenue.

The regulations came about due to large parcels being bought and clearcut or cut hard and then resold. The net effect over time is the residual value of the land and timber inventory is on a down slope. That improverishes the state eventually.
Dave.

 

[dmccarty]

Timber operations depend on local conditions. In our case they did use skidders and a cutting machine. We have some real bad soil but there was not much rutting at all. We only had one deck on 70ish acres and it was at one end of the property. They dragged trees all the way to that deck from the other end of the property.

Trees were cut down by the cutter and then a man topped off the hardwoods. Pines they just dragged to the deck for precessing into logs.

Soil conditions, topography, market, tree type and size, as well as local regulations is going to drive how the timber is harvested. I just reads that most timber is now harvested off of private lands since the National Forests are being closed down for timber sales.

I don't see how timber slash can even make a dent in the energy needs of the US. There was very little slash left over when our land was timbered. We had one big two story house sized pile at the deck that included stumps and slash from the house site. The hardwood tops were left in a few piles here and there. Might have added up to another ranch house or two. The two story pile is now one story and the ranch houses are reduced by at least half as well. Gigantic amounts of energy would have to be harvested from that slash. I just don't see how that would be possible. And even if it is. You won't get another harvest for 70-80 years.

And in 70-80 years our land is most likely going to be growing houses.

Later,
Dan

 

[keegs]

Hi Dan,

It's funny you mentioned 70 years. The harvest cycle on a crop of grass is about 70 days. You're probably aware that there's quite a bit of cropland under the USDA's CRP. Last I checked the Feds require participants in that program to maintain their fields by cutting every other year. It's purely speculation on my part but it seems to me there's some potential here as a source.

 

[Pilot]

When I worked in Montana, the lodgepole pines, similar to jack pine in the east, were small enough that American Timber logged the whole tree. Loaded them on the truck and tops and all went to the mill. All the waste went into the burner & they generated enough electricity to power the mill and sell some to the local utility.

Big lodgepoles are only about 12 inches in diameter; I think the largest I ever measured was about 22". Height about 70-80 feet, 60-80 years old.

But in Oregon, on the west side of the Cascades where growing conditions are better, you'll get 12", 70 ft. tall Doug-firs in 30 years or so and they are really growing fast, 3 or more feet in height per year, so no one wants a regeneration cut at that age.

We don't get enough dependable snow to log on. Last year we had a pretty good dump, totaled about 22" and lasted a couple weeks before it was all gone. Some years we get only a couple inches. And we are at 1,200 ft. elevation. Much of the private timberland is lower, warmer.

Loggers here aren't geared to routinely log on deep snow; when I was working for the Forest Service, fresh from Montana, I required a sale be logged on snow at 4,000 ft in the Cascades. Didn't work so well; the snow was 4 ft. deep, they had to plow a route to each tree for the fallers, when the tree came down half was buried in the snow and they couldn't limb & buck them. And it was low value timber, mostly mountain hemlock. I was new at sale planning and it showed. Worked OK in Montana, but I wasn't involved in timber sales there so I didn't know why if it worked there it wouldn't work in Oregon. I've learned a lot since then.

 

[dave1949]

We don't get enough dependable snow to log on. Last year we had a pretty good dump, totaled about 22" and lasted a couple weeks before it was all gone. Some years we get only a couple inches. And we are at 1,200 ft. elevation. Much of the private timberland is lower, warmer.

Loggers here aren't geared to routinely log on deep snow; when I was working for the Forest Service, fresh from Montana, I required a sale be logged on snow at 4,000 ft in the Cascades. Didn't work so well; the snow was 4 ft. deep, they had to plow a route to each tree for the fallers, when the tree came down half was buried in the snow and they couldn't limb & buck them. And it was low value timber, mostly mountain hemlock. I was new at sale planning and it showed. Worked OK in Montana, but I wasn't involved in timber sales there so I didn't know why if it worked there it wouldn't work in Oregon. I've learned a lot since then.

It gets too deep here too some winters to be worth getting into the woods. If we get much over three feet of snowpack, that's pretty deep for us. Avg. season snowfall total is usually around 6' - 7'. I bet your name was being combined with colorful words on that harvest. Every once in a while I drive past 4' tall stumps, which is a good sign somebody was cutting in deep snow and ain't about to run there feller saw blade into a rock or whatever is hiding in the snow.

The energy that could be provided by forest biomass is certainly limited. I see the concept as it being just one energy source out of many that are sustainable. If it could supply 10% or 15% of a given region's energy needs, that's more than they had before. A little here a little there sort of thing.

We really think about it here in Maine where 80% of homes are heated with #2 oil and we are surrounded by trees. That situation could be improved upon. If the majority of homes could cut their oil consumption by some percentage, it adds up quickly.

Dave.

 

[dmccarty]

Hi Dan,

It's funny you mentioned 70 years. The harvest cycle on a crop of grass is about 70 days. You're probably aware that there's quite a bit of cropland under the USDA's CRP. Last I checked the Feds require participants in that program to maintain their fields by cutting every other year. It's purely speculation on my part but it seems to me there's some potential here as a source.

Well, the discussion was about timber slash.

Many farmers are pulling out of CRP because they can make more money growing crops. Environmentalists don't like the CRP land being put back into production. I really would like to see some numbers on how much energy can really be created from waste products on farm/timber land. I am very skeptical it can be done profitably. The company that bought our timber could pay top dollar because they had lower transportation costs since there mill was close by.

To cut and bail grass grown on CRP land is going to cost some money. Then the bales have to be transported which costs even more. The process to get a product out of the bale had better be very cheap and efficient to make it worth the expense.

Later,
Dan

 

[dave1949]

I really would like to see some numbers on how much energy can really be created from waste products on farm/timber land. I am very skeptical it can be done profitably. The company that bought our timber could pay top dollar because they had lower transportation costs since there mill was close by.


Later,
Dan

Wood pellet mills that take sawdust from mills and make pellets come to mind as one competitive product if the price of oil is relatively high - (who knows what that price may be these days?) This secondary use would be the best case scenario obviously. Maybe that is the only way it can make sense with current technology.

Back in 2002, a Maine study found the cost of generatiing electricity from wood waste was $56/MW while the current supplier market price was $44/MW. Don't have a more recent comparison. Oil is more expensive now I think. The wood fuel plants were built in the 1980's.

Not being an economist, I don't know how to value the local labor, industry and tax revenues that would derive from local fuel electricity production. It would seem that if the costs were within spittin' distance for wood vs oil/coal/natural gas, the value of a local economy with jobs and the means to support schools, etc. would be high.

I don't think anyone expects forest biomass to become a primary fuel source. We do have a handful of schools and public buildings that are heated with pellet-fired boilers. That makes sense when oil prices are erratic and it's good politics to put the school tax dollars back into the regional economy.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

I'm thinking of the hundreds of millions of new consumers around the world all aspiring to live like Americans. I think new car sales in China just exceeded sales in the US. It would seem logical to assume then that demand for motor fuels is only going to increase and margins will tighten again.

Strategies to consume less gasoline could make biofuels less competitive, at least in the near term but we're usually not good at comsuming less of anything once the economy is growing.

 

[Pilot]

Seems like Keegs & I agree on some things, in this case the increase in demand for fuel as China and India, as well as other developing countries become more prosperous and people want cars. Tata Motors in India has come out with a car priced at less than $3,000. It won't be long before worldwide demand for motor fuel takes off. The recession has delayed it somewhat, but it's coming.

I am hopeful that we'll be able to get fuel from algae, but that doesn't seem to be coming along as fast as it seemed it might. Increases in prices for gasoline and diesel might get things going.

Here's a different perspective in regard to world oil reserves: Experts talk about limited oil supplies and especially the peak oil believers. But one thing that isn't mentioned in the discussion is that there are about 800,000 oil wells in the world, of which over 500,000 are in the USA alone. Think about it. So about 63% of all the wells in the world are here. Sure, more modern wells are more efficient (the Saudis are working to monitor all wells by computer and can turn wells off or on from a central control center as prices fluctuate), but it seem extremely unlikely that we had so much of the oil in the world at one time. That stat suggests that there are a lot more places to explore.

One of the roadblocks to more exploration is a reluctance on the part of many third world governments to allow foreign companies to explore in their territory, due probably to their colonial history. And the preponderance of nationalized oil companies. Pemex in Mexico has seen a huge drop in production, but they still have pretty good reserves; it's just that there is so much corruption and they are so inefficient. Mexico is now an oil importer if my memory is correct.

Lastly 70% of the world is under water. We now have technology for deep water drilling.

Oil reserves numbers are based on a particular price point for oil. At $40 per barrel, reserves are a lot lower than if the price is $80 per barrel, because at $80 a company can afford to suck oil out of expensive sources. So as prices climb, reserves climb.

Gasoline will likely cost more in the not so distant future, but my money (and I'm no expert, so don't quote me, I just want to give you food for thought) says we'll have oil for quite a long time to come.

Of course, if human caused global warming is real, it may not matter how much oil we have.

 

[IH3444]

BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com

 

[dmccarty]

I don't think anyone expects forest biomass to become a primary fuel source. We do have a handful of schools and public buildings that are heated with pellet-fired boilers. That makes sense when oil prices are erratic and it's good politics to put the school tax dollars back into the regional economy.
Dave.

But was it a good use of tax dollars? Were the old boilers reused, left in place or replaced. If the old boilers were kept and able to use either oil or wood then it might make money sense. But if new boilers had to purchased was that a wise use of money?

I looked at pellet stoves. There was no reason to own one to save money. In fact it would likely cost me more money compared to heating with electric because of the high cost of the pellets. And I studied the stoves before the pellet prices increased. Getting the pellets can be erratic. The WSJ had a story a year or so back about the shortage of wood pellets due to the lack of demand for lumber. No lumber means there is no sawdust to make into pellets. Lack of pellets but lots of demand drove up prices. Like any commodity.

I dont see how the use of forest biomass amounts to a poot in a hurricane compared to the overall energy requirements of the US. If it makes money sense in a given area that is great it should be used. But I don't see how it will effect national energy usage.

Later,
Dan